Taşdemir Merve Nur, Eryürük Uluhan, Oğuz Ural, Tok Birgül, Aslan Serdar
Giresun University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Giresun, Türkiye
Giresun University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Giresun, Türkiye
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2025 Jul 8;30(4):295-302. doi: 10.4274/dir.2024.243004. Epub 2024 Nov 25.
To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements and semi-quantitative dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) parameters in predicting the differentiation between low- and high-grade tumors in non-muscle invasive bladder cancers (NMIBC).
Patients with NMIBC, who were histopathologically confirmed between August 2020 and July 2023, were analyzed by 2 radiologists with different levels of experience. DCE semi-quantitative parameters such as wash-in rate (WiR), wash-out ratio (WoR), time to peak (TTP), and peak enhancement (PE) were calculated. ADC measurements were performed using the three-region-of-interest (ADCt) and whole volume (ADCw) methods; ADCt ratio (ADCtR) and ADCw ratio (ADCwR) were also calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to demonstrate the cut-off values of ADCt, ADCw, ADCtR, and ADCwR to differentiate low- and high-grade tumors. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate inter-reader agreement.
A total of 89 patients were included in this study. Of these patients, 48 had low-grade NMIBC, and 41 had high-grade NMIBC. There was no significant difference in mean WoR, WiR, TTP, and PE values between low- and high-grade NMIBC ( > 0.05). The ADCt, ADCw, ADCtR, and ADCwR values of high-grade NMIBC were significantly lower than those of low-grade NMIBC ( < 0.001). With cut-off values of 0.449 and 0.435, ADCtR had the best diagnostic value for both readers, showing better accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (85.4%–83.1%, 87.5%–85.4%, 82.9%–80.4%, and 0.879–0.857, respectively, with confidence intervals). Additionally, ADCtR and ADCt showed acceptable diagnostic performance for both readers, with cut-off values of 0.439 and 0.431, respectively, for differentiating Ta- and T1-stages. The inter-reader agreement was almost perfect for ADC measurements.
While DCE semiquantative parameters did not yield significant outcomes in distinguishing between low and high grades, ADCtR holds promise for enhancing patient management in NMIBC cases and stands as a potential preoperative radiological asset.
Individuals diagnosed with NMIBC may require different treatment approaches; therefore, it is very important to distinguish between low- and high-grade cases preoperatively. The differentiation between the Ta- and T1-stages is recognized as crucial in patient treatment strategies. Furthermore, ADCtR shows promise for improving patient management in NMIBC cases.
评估表观扩散系数(ADC)测量值和半定量动态对比增强(DCE)参数在预测非肌层浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)低级别和高级别肿瘤分化方面的诊断效能。
对2020年8月至2023年7月间经组织病理学确诊的NMIBC患者进行分析,由两位经验水平不同的放射科医生进行解读。计算DCE半定量参数,如流入率(WiR)、流出率(WoR)、达峰时间(TTP)和峰值强化(PE)。采用三区感兴趣区(ADCt)和全容积(ADCw)方法进行ADC测量;还计算了ADCt比值(ADCtR)和ADCw比值(ADCwR)。绘制受试者工作特征曲线分析,以确定ADCt、ADCw、ADCtR和ADCwR区分低级别和高级别肿瘤的临界值。使用组内相关系数评估阅片者间的一致性。
本研究共纳入89例患者。其中,48例为低级别NMIBC,41例为高级别NMIBC。低级别和高级别NMIBC的平均WoR、WiR、TTP和PE值之间无显著差异(P>0.05)。高级别NMIBC的ADCt、ADCw、ADCtR和ADCwR值显著低于低级别NMIBC(P<0.001)。ADCtR的临界值分别为0.449和0.435时,对两位阅片者而言诊断价值最佳,显示出更好的准确性、敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积(分别为85.4%–83.1%、87.5%–85.4%、82.9%–80.4%和0.879–0.857,均含置信区间)。此外,ADCtR和ADCt对两位阅片者区分Ta期和T1期均显示出可接受的诊断性能,临界值分别为0.439和0.431。ADC测量的阅片者间一致性几乎完美。
虽然DCE半定量参数在区分低级别和高级别肿瘤方面未产生显著结果,但ADCtR有望改善NMIBC病例的患者管理,是一种潜在的术前影像学指标。
诊断为NMIBC的个体可能需要不同的治疗方法;因此,术前区分低级别和高级别病例非常重要。Ta期和T1期的区分在患者治疗策略中被认为至关重要。此外,ADCtR在改善NMIBC病例的患者管理方面显示出前景。